Objective To compare the ef ects of cleaning, single-pass Ultrasonic and double circulation Ultrasonic.to reduce nosocomial infections. Methods A total of 60 regeneration biopsy needle that were recycled from various clinical departments, the group A30 (single-pass Ultrasonic),rinsed with enzyme,scrubbed, Ultrasonic cleaning,potch. the group B30(double circulation Ultrasonic), rinsed with enzyme,scrubbed, Ultrasonic cleaning, ,potch. Ultrasonic cleaning again ,potch again .The regeneration biopsy needle of the two groups were compared through the visual inspection and the bacterial colony counts.Results The qualified rates of the group A and the group B were 83.3%and 96.6%.by the visual inspection,respectively ,the qualified rates of the bacterial colony counts were 86.6%and 100%,respectively,the dif erences were statistical y significant(P<0.05). Conclusion the double circulation Ultrasonic cleaning is conducive to ensure the quality of the cleaning,disinfection,and sterilization and can reduce the risks of nosocomial infections.%目的：比较单次超声波与双循环超声波的清洗效果，以免发生医院感染。方法将各科室回收活检针60个，A组30个（单次超声波清洗）：酶泡、刷洗、超声波、漂洗；B组30个（双循环超声波清洗）：酶泡、刷洗、超声波、漂洗、再超声波、再漂洗；将A、B组的活检针用目测和菌落计数的方法进行比较。结果 A组和 B组的目测合格率分别为83.3%和96.6%，菌落计数合格率分别为86.6%和100.0%，差异有统计学意义（P<0.05）。结论双循环超声波清洗有利于清洗消毒灭菌质量的保证，减少医院感染隐患。
展开▼
